IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/knz/dpteco/1515.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Public Preferences for Carbon Tax Attributes

Author

Listed:
  • Z. Eylem Gevrek

    () (Department of Economics, University of Konstanz, Germany)

  • Ayse Uyduranoglu

    () (Istanbul Bilgi University, Turkey)

Abstract

The impacts of climate change are already visible throughout the world. Recognizing the threats posed by climate change, the Durban Platform, the 17th Session of the Conference of Parties (COP 17), underscores that the global nature of climate change calls for the widest possible cooperation and ambitious action by all countries. A crucial starting point for the design of effective and publicly acceptable policies is to explore public preferences for climate policy instruments. Using a choice experiment, this study investigates public preferences for carbon tax attributes in a developing country context. The results account for heterogeneity in preferences and show that Turkish people prefer a carbon tax with a progressive cost distribution rather than one with a regressive cost distribution. The private cost has a negative effect on the probability of choosing the tax. Earmarking carbon tax revenues increases the public acceptability of the tax. Moreover, there is a preference for a carbon tax that promotes public awareness of climate change.

Suggested Citation

  • Z. Eylem Gevrek & Ayse Uyduranoglu, 2015. "Public Preferences for Carbon Tax Attributes," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2015-15, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
  • Handle: RePEc:knz:dpteco:1515
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.uni-konstanz.de/FuF/wiwi/workingpaperseries/WP_15_Gevrek_2015.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhang, ZhongXiang & Baranzini, Andrea, 2004. "What do we know about carbon taxes? An inquiry into their impacts on competitiveness and distribution of income," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 507-518, March.
    2. Torres, Cati & Hanley, Nick & Riera, Antoni, 2011. "How wrong can you be? Implications of incorrect utility function specification for welfare measurement in choice experiments," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 62(1), pages 111-121, July.
    3. Brännlund, Runar & Persson, Lars, 2010. "Tax or no tax? Preferences for climate policy attributes," Umeå Economic Studies 802, Umeå University, Department of Economics.
    4. Martin L. Weitzman, 1974. "Prices vs. Quantities," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(4), pages 477-491.
    5. Fredrik Carlsson & Mitesh Kataria & Alan Krupnick & Elina Lampi & Åsa Löfgren & Ping Qin & Susie Chun & Thomas Sterner, 2012. "Paying for Mitigation: A Multiple Country Study," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 88(2), pages 326-340.
    6. Stern,Nicholas, 2007. "The Economics of Climate Change," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521700801, December.
    7. Runar Brannlund & Lars Persson, 2012. "To tax, or not to tax: preferences for climate policy attributes," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(6), pages 704-721, November.
    8. Kevin A. Hassett & Aparna Mathur & Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2009. "The Incidence of a U.S. Carbon Tax: A Lifetime and Regional Analysis," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 2), pages 155-178.
    9. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Prices versus quantities with incomplete enforcement," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 435-454, September.
    10. Niklas Harring & Sverker C. Jagers, 2013. "Should We Trust in Values? Explaining Public Support for Pro-Environmental Taxes," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, January.
    11. Beck, Marisa & Rivers, Nicholas & Wigle, Randall & Yonezawa, Hidemichi, 2015. "Carbon tax and revenue recycling: Impacts on households in British Columbia," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 40-69.
    12. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, December.
    13. Adaman, Fikret & KaralI, Nihan & Kumbaroglu, Gürkan & Or, Ilhan & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2011. "What determines urban households' willingness to pay for CO2 emission reductions in Turkey: A contingent valuation survey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 689-698, February.
    14. Sergio Colombo & Nick Hanley & Jordan Louviere, 2009. "Modeling preference heterogeneity in stated choice data: an analysis for public goods generated by agriculture," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 307-322, May.
    15. Michel Elzen & Jos Olivier & Niklas Höhne & Greet Janssens-Maenhout, 2013. "Countries’ contributions to climate change: effect of accounting for all greenhouse gases, recent trends, basic needs and technological progress," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 397-412, November.
    16. S. Jaensirisak & M. Wardman & A. D. May, 2005. "Explaining Variations in Public Acceptability of Road Pricing Schemes," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 39(2), pages 127-154, May.
    17. Bristow, Abigail L. & Wardman, Mark & Zanni, Alberto M. & Chintakayala, Phani K., 2010. "Public acceptability of personal carbon trading and carbon tax," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1824-1837, July.
    18. Kallbekken, Steffen & Sælen, Håkon, 2011. "Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 2966-2973, May.
    19. Sclen, Håkon & Kallbekken, Steffen, 2011. "A choice experiment on fuel taxation and earmarking in Norway," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 2181-2190, September.
    20. Pinar Ertor Akyazi & Fikret Adaman & Begum Ozkaynak & Unal Zenginobuz, 2012. "Citizens’ Preferences over Nuclear and Renewable Energy Sources: Evidence from Turkey," Working Papers 2012/01, Bogazici University, Department of Economics.
    21. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, December.
    22. Stephen Smith, 1992. "Taxation and the environment: a survey," Fiscal Studies, Institute for Fiscal Studies, vol. 13(4), pages 21-57, January.
    23. Stavins, Robert N., 1997. "Policy Instruments for Climate Change: How Can National Governments Address a Global Problem?," Discussion Papers 10757, Resources for the Future.
    24. Ertör-Akyazı, Pınar & Adaman, Fikret & Özkaynak, Begüm & Zenginobuz, Ünal, 2012. "Citizens’ preferences on nuclear and renewable energy sources: Evidence from Turkey," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 309-320.
    25. Greene, William H. & Hensher, David A., 2003. "A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 681-698, September.
    26. Henrik Hammar & Sverker C. Jagers, 2005. "Can trust in politicians explain individuals' support for climate policy? The case of CO 2 tax," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 5(6), pages 613-625, November.
    27. Mauricio Sillano & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2005. "Willingness-to-Pay Estimation with Mixed Logit Models: Some New Evidence," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 37(3), pages 525-550, March.
    28. Baranzini, Andrea & Goldemberg, Jose & Speck, Stefan, 2000. "A future for carbon taxes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 395-412, March.
    29. Dresner, Simon & Dunne, Louise & Clinch, Peter & Beuermann, Christiane, 2006. "Social and political responses to ecological tax reform in Europe: an introduction to the special issue," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 895-904, May.
    30. Godal, Odd & Holtsmark, Bjart, 2001. "Greenhouse gas taxation and the distribution of costs and benefits: the case of Norway," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(8), pages 653-662, June.
    31. Kallbekken, Steffen & Aasen, Marianne, 2010. "The demand for earmarking: Results from a focus group study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2183-2190, September.
    32. Louviere, Jordan J & Hensher, David A, 1983. "Using Discrete Choice Models with Experimental Design Data to Forecast Consumer Demand for a Unique Cultural Event," Journal of Consumer Research, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 348-361, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stefano Carattini & Andrea Baranzini & Philippe Thalmann & Frédéric Varone & Frank Vöhringer, 2017. "Green Taxes in a Post-Paris World: Are Millions of Nays Inevitable?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 68(1), pages 97-128, September.
    2. Freyre, Alisa & Klinke, Sandra & Patel, Martin K., 2020. "Carbon tax and energy programs for buildings: Rivals or allies?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    3. Stefano Carattini & Simon Levin & Alessandro Tavoni, 2019. "Cooperation in the Climate Commons," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 13(2), pages 227-247.
    4. Farrell, Niall, 2017. "What Factors Drive Inequalities in Carbon Tax Incidence? Decomposing Socioeconomic Inequalities in Carbon Tax Incidence in Ireland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 31-45.
    5. Simixhiu, Amantia & Ziegler, Andreas, 2018. "On the relevance of income and behavioral factors for absolute and relative donations: A framed field experiment," VfS Annual Conference 2018 (Freiburg, Breisgau): Digital Economy 181600, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Douenne, Thomas & Fabre, Adrien, 2020. "French attitudes on climate change, carbon taxation and other climate policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    7. Dorband, Ira Irina & Jakob, Michael & Kalkuhl, Matthias & Steckel, Jan Christoph, 2019. "Poverty and distributional effects of carbon pricing in low- and middle-income countries – A global comparative analysis," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 246-257.
    8. Thomas Douenne & Adrien Fabre, 2019. "Can We Reconcile French People with the Carbon Tax? Disentangling Beliefs from Preferences," Working Papers 2019.10, FAERE - French Association of Environmental and Resource Economists.
    9. Chen, Zi-yue & Nie, Pu-yan, 2016. "Effects of carbon tax on social welfare: A case study of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 183(C), pages 1607-1615.
    10. Ziegler, Andreas, 2019. "The Relevance of Attitudinal Factors for the Acceptance of Energy Policy Measures: A Micro-econometric Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 129-140.
    11. Laurent Ott & Mehdi Farsi & Sylvain Weber, 2020. "Beyond political divides: Analyzing public opinion on carbon taxation in Switzerland," IRENE Working Papers 20-11, IRENE Institute of Economic Research.
    12. Andreas Ziegler, 2017. "Economic calculus or personal and social values? A micro-econometric analysis of the acceptance of climate and energy policy measures," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201716, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    13. Groh, Elke D. & Ziegler, Andreas, 2018. "On self-interested preferences for burden sharing rules: An econometric analysis for the costs of energy policy measures," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 417-426.
    14. Stefano Carattini & Maria Carvalho & Sam Fankhauser, 2018. "Overcoming public resistance to carbon taxes," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(5), September.
    15. Umit, Resul & Schaffer, Lena Maria, 2020. "Attitudes towards carbon taxes across Europe: The role of perceived uncertainty and self-interest," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    16. Wang, Linyuan & Zhao, Lin & Mao, Guozhu & Zuo, Jian & Du, Huibin, 2017. "Way to accomplish low carbon development transformation: A bibliometric analysis during 1995–2014," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 68(P1), pages 57-69.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Carbon taxes; Choice experiment; Latent class model; Mixed logit model; Preferences; Turkey;

    JEL classification:

    • H - Public Economics
    • Q - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:knz:dpteco:1515. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Office Ursprung). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/fwkonde.html .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.